Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wastedmytwenties t1_j9wkp01 wrote

I'm not trying to be funny here, but I genuinely think this has been written by an AI. Play around with chatgpt and it has the same exact tone.


MoleyWhammoth t1_j9wr2e1 wrote

My thoughts exactly.

Did we just pass the Turing Test?


ibringthehotpockets t1_j9xs6bu wrote

It’s easy to be biased towards detecting that it’s an AI if you read the comments here first. There was very little in the article that made me think “nope can’t be human” - it’s a post on a Wordpress blog. I wouldn’t really hold that to NYtimes level of writing. The thing that stood out most was the jumping around topics from like Oppenheimer and Nietzsche. But still, that to me is just like a high schoolers essay lol.

So to answer your question, yes. I read a lot of books and social media and this passed the test for me. Nothing distinctly unhuman about 90% of this writing. Literally everyone in the comments thinks so too. Unless you’re promoted with “this article is written by AI,” I think most people are gonna go towards no.


oramirite t1_j9yjjlt wrote

But "to me" isn't the test. Hundreds of other people made the spot that you didn't.


ibringthehotpockets t1_j9zbk7y wrote

I would say a majority of people did pass it. Based on the comments, which are certainly more biased towards spotting it (they’re also going to be self-selecting educated/readers). At least at the time of posting my previous comment, there were many upvotes comments discussing it as if it were real. There’s certainly more rigorous tests that should bf done obviously, but even getting a 50% result posting to a philosophy board would probably make you think that posting it to the populace could only increase that number.

If 90% of people pass it and 10% doesn’t, does it pass lol? I mean I would think yes, I don’t see why not.


oramirite t1_j9zcoan wrote

Give me a break, eye-scanning a reddit thread for rough percentages is NEEEEEVWR going to be a scientifically sound sampling method. You'd have do actually do the test according to the actual specifications of the test. Anything else you wanna try to bend into being the test .... isn't.

What is being marketed and developed as "AI" is garbage, and we should all rally against it as being a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.


GepardenK t1_j9y9tth wrote

> Did we just pass the Turing Test?

Well, no. Even if everyone thought this article was written by a human that would not pass the Turing Test.

The Turing test requires two participants to engage back and forth in conversation, one being human and the other an AI, and then for a third party to watch the conversation in real time and not be able to distinguish who is human and who is not.

It is a significantly higher standard than simply confusing some algorithmic text for having been written by a person.


oramirite t1_j9yjgdt wrote

No, because it's a trash article that everyone spotted right away